<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Packingham petition offers hope for change at nation’s highest court	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/</link>
	<description>Fighting for registered citizens and families</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:06:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Lovecraft		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-14</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lovecraft]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=351#comment-14</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-13&quot;&gt;rwvnral&lt;/a&gt;.

Further update released:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/justices-add-eight-new-cases-to-docket-for-upcoming-term/

The justices are expected to release additional orders – including a lengthy list of denials – from the September 26 conference next Monday Oct 3rd at 9:30 a.m.


So guess there is still a chance...I thought it was dead.  I did notice in the link above they noted this:

&quot;The justices granted only eight new cases today, five fewer than this time last year. And although the eight cases in which review was granted present some interesting questions (for example, a trademark case involving the musical group The Slants and a dispute over credit card surcharges), none of them involves particularly high-profile or divisive issues.&quot;

So maybe they are taking more time to review the more significant cases.  I  skimmed through all the cases on the docket for the Sept 26th conference and a good portion did not seem divisive or high profile.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-13">rwvnral</a>.</p>
<p>Further update released:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/justices-add-eight-new-cases-to-docket-for-upcoming-term/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/justices-add-eight-new-cases-to-docket-for-upcoming-term/</a></p>
<p>The justices are expected to release additional orders – including a lengthy list of denials – from the September 26 conference next Monday Oct 3rd at 9:30 a.m.</p>
<p>So guess there is still a chance&#8230;I thought it was dead.  I did notice in the link above they noted this:</p>
<p>&#8220;The justices granted only eight new cases today, five fewer than this time last year. And although the eight cases in which review was granted present some interesting questions (for example, a trademark case involving the musical group The Slants and a dispute over credit card surcharges), none of them involves particularly high-profile or divisive issues.&#8221;</p>
<p>So maybe they are taking more time to review the more significant cases.  I  skimmed through all the cases on the docket for the Sept 26th conference and a good portion did not seem divisive or high profile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: rwvnral		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-13</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rwvnral]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=351#comment-13</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-12&quot;&gt;Lovecraft&lt;/a&gt;.

It&#039;s not a promising sign for Packingham. But we&#039;ll keep it monitored.  The Court is very picky about the cases it selects.  I would not read the Court&#039;s lack of action as any indication that it agrees with the decision, but only that the Court does not view the case as worthy of review at this time (or it simply did not get the necessary votes to grant cert).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-12">Lovecraft</a>.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not a promising sign for Packingham. But we&#8217;ll keep it monitored.  The Court is very picky about the cases it selects.  I would not read the Court&#8217;s lack of action as any indication that it agrees with the decision, but only that the Court does not view the case as worthy of review at this time (or it simply did not get the necessary votes to grant cert).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lovecraft		</title>
		<link>https://ncrsol.org/2016/05/packingham-petition-offers-hope-for-change-at-nations-highest-court/#comment-12</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lovecraft]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ncrsol.org/?p=351#comment-12</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[SCOTUS just announced on their blog that they granted 9 writs from the Sept 26th conference.  I downloaded the pdf and packingham was not listed.  Does this mean this is completely exhausted now? If that&#039;s the case that is pretty depressing. Packingham even had the same guy (David Post) write a brief and he helped get the nebraska social media thing overturned in their court.  I really thought this was a solid case.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SCOTUS just announced on their blog that they granted 9 writs from the Sept 26th conference.  I downloaded the pdf and packingham was not listed.  Does this mean this is completely exhausted now? If that&#8217;s the case that is pretty depressing. Packingham even had the same guy (David Post) write a brief and he helped get the nebraska social media thing overturned in their court.  I really thought this was a solid case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
